Exhibit 607

Sugar review: Rewriting history to expose a non-existent conspiracy

Exhibit 607 · Opinion

Sugar review: Rewriting history to expose a non-existent conspiracy

Dr Kearns presents no evidence that McGandy, Stare and Hegsted did anything dishonest.

Opinion piece by the chief executive of an industry association whose members include grocery suppliers and one sugar refinery (her own disclosure in the piece). Argues that the SRF correspondence was 'relatively innocuous', that a single literature review could not have derailed the debate, that McGandy and Stare had no correspondence with the SRF, and that Keys and the American Heart Association dominated the field. Quotes Walter Willett on Hegsted.

Source: Katherine Rich, FoodNavigator
Date: 19 September 2016
Quoted from: Section beginning 'Communications from the academics to the foundation's research director'
Grade: Reported
Document: https://www.foodnavigator.com/Article/2016/09/19/Sugar-review-Rewriting-history-to-expose-a-non-existent-conspiracy/
Accessed: 2026-11-09
Cited by: Findings citing this exhibit
Note: Reported opinion. The strongest rebuttal found; no peer-reviewed rebuttal by 'Erickson et al. 2017' was located. Willett quote (second hand): 'I very much doubt that he changed what he believed or would conclude based on industry funding.'

Cited by

Finding AGR-2.4: Peer-reviewed Kearns, Schmidt and Glantz state that there is no direct evidence that the sugar industry wrote or changed the manuscript of the 1967 review and that the evidence the industry shaped its conclusions is circumstantial.
Finding AGR-2.15: Open question The documents do not establish whether the Sugar Research Foundation's funding changed the conclusions of the 1967 review.